I took that comment to mean that, for example, you can take a Buddhist quote and interpret it to mean the same as something found in the Bible, even though, in the usual sense of the words, nothing like it is found in the Bible. (see post #18)
Continued in a new thread because the first one was being haunted by random italics.
Regarding the above, maybe I wasn’t clear, but I was specifically trying not to do this - first in talking about how comparing different things (i.e., original religious texts to later philosophers,) can indeed be apples and oranges; and then in saying that I think Christianity often uses a more ‘mood setting’ implicit approach vs. Buddhism’s explicit approach. Granted, you could say you think this idea is incorrect in that you don’t actually think Christianity does do a better job (compared to average daily life) of ‘mind inclining’ - that’s certainly subjective. But my point was not that Christianity explicitly says the same things as Buddhism or says them in some secret ‘coded’ way, more that I think at an experiential level, the practices surrounding Christianity (the art, music, sermons, services, architecture, literature, rituals, and so on,) can very much incline the mind towards the concept of (whatever you prefer to call it) in an implicit way, whereas Buddhism tends to be very explicit about these same topics - and that both approaches have pros and cons.
I suppose you could use the cookbook analogy for anything in life - i.e., if I said “this sunset is amazingly beautiful and inspiring”, you could say “cookbooks can be just as amazingly beautiful and inspiring” - again, that’s pretty subjective, but in this case I think the difference is pronounced enough that I think one would need to make a further case as to why the cookbook is just as mind inclining as the Sistine Chapel, as it doesn’t seem intuitively obvious to me.